The power of numbers in gender dynamics: illustrations from community forestry groups

References

• Agarwal, B. 1994. A field of one's own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal, B. 1997. Bargaining and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3, no. 1: 1–51. doi: 10.1080/135457097338799
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal, B. 2010. Gender and green governance: The political economy of women's presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal, B. 2013. Food Security, productivity and gender inequality. In Oxford handbook of food politics and society, ed. R. Herring. New York: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195397772.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195397772-e-002
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal, B. 2014. Food sovereignty, food security and democratic choice: Critical contradictions, difficult conciliations. Journal of Peasant Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876996 (accessed 16 July 2014).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. 2001. Communities and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• APMAS. 2007. SHG federations in India: A perspective. New Delhi: Access Development Services.
   Google Scholar
• Bahuguna, V. K. 2004. Root to canopy: An overview. In Root to canopy, ed. V. K. Bahuguna, K. Mitra, D. Capistrano, and S. Saigal, 15–24. New Delhi: Commonwealth Forestry Association and Winrock International.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, C. 1997. Federation building and networking: FECOFUN and experiences from user groups. Nepal, Discussion Paper, Ford Foundation, New Delhi.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, C. 2007. FECOFUN'S role in the Loktantra Andolan (2005–2006), forest users support for community forestry and democracy in Nepal, Final Report to Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 26 May.
   Google Scholar
• Bratton, K. A. 2005. Critical mass theory revisited: The behavior and success of token women in state legislatures. Politics & Gender 1, no. 1: 97–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratton, K. A., and L. P. Ray. 2002. Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science 46, no. 2: 428–37. doi: 10.2307/3088386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, S. J., and E. Taylor. 1989. Gender differences in policy priorities of US State legislators’. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Aug.–Sept.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri, S., and A. S. P. Pfaff. 2003. Fuel-choice and indoor air quality: A household-level perspective on economic growth and the environment. Mimeo, Department of Economics and School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlerup, D. 1988. From a small to a large majority: Women in Scandinavian politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 11, no. 4: 275–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00372.x
   Google Scholar
• Dash, A. 2013. Towards an epistemological foundation for social and solidarity economy’. Paper presented at the UNRISD conference on Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy, Geneva, 6–8 May.
   Google Scholar
• EDA. 2006. Self help groups in india: A study of lights and shades Gurgaon: EDA Rural Systems Private Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Folbre, N. 2011. Unpaid care and economic development, Distinguished Lecture 5. Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth.
   Google Scholar
• Flammang, J. 1985. Female officials in the feminist capital: The case of Santa Clara County. Western Political Quarterly 34: 94–118.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25/26: 56–80. doi: 10.2307/466240
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, F. 2005. Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review 36: 69–88.
   Google Scholar
• Goetz, A. M. 2009. Governing women: Will new public space for some women make a difference for all women?. In Governing women: Women's political effectiveness in contexts of democratization and governance reform, ed. A. M. Goetz, 3–21. Geneva: UNRISD.
   Google Scholar
• Government of India. 2000. Report of the pilot time use survey 1998–99. Delhi: Department of Statistics, Central Statistical Office.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Nepal. 2000. ‘FUG Database’, Community and Private Forestry Division, Dept. of Forests, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Nepal. 2004. Nepal living standards survey 2003–04, Statistical Report. Kathmandu: CBS, National Planning Commission Secretariat, GoN.
   Google Scholar
• Kanter, R. M. 1977a. Numbers: minorities and majorities. In Men and women of the corporation, ed. R. M. Kanter, 206–44. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kanter, R. M. 1977b. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 5: 965–90.
   Google Scholar
• Lovenduski, J. 1997. Gender politics: A breakthrough for women?. Parliamentary Affairs 50: 708–19. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a028766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G. 1971. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. 1990. Feminism and democracy. American Prospect 1: 126–39.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, A. 2005. Sustainability of microfinance self-help groups in India: Would federating help? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3516, World Bank, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, A. and P. Shah. 2007. Self-help works. Times of India, December 27.
   Google Scholar
• Narain, U., Gupta, S., and Veld, K.V. 2005. Poverty and the environment: Exploring the relationship between household incomes, private assets and natural assets’, Discussion Paper 05–18, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• NCAER. 2008. Impact and sustainability of SHG bank linkage programme. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Nirantar. 2007. Examining literacy and power within Self-Help Groups: A quantitative analysis. Delhi: Nirantar.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P., and R. Inglehart. 2001. Cultural obstacles to equal representation. Journal of Democracy 12, no. 3: 126–40. doi: 10.1353/jod.2001.0054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojha, J., H. Sharma, D.R. Khanal, H. Dhungana, B. Pathak, G. Pandey, B. Bhattarai, N. Sharma, and B. Pokharel. 2007. Citizen federation in democratizing forest governance: Lessons from community forestry users’ federation of Nepal. Paper presented at the International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests held on 3–7 September 2007, Regional Community Forestry Training Center and Rights and Resources Initiative, Bangkok.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom. E. 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. 1995. The politics of presence: The political representation of gender, ethnicity and race. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saint-Germain, M. A. 1989. Does their difference make a difference? The impact of women on public policy in the Arizona legislature. Social Science Quarterly 70, no. 4: 956–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapiro, V. 1981. When are interests interesting? The problem of political representation of women. American Journal of Political Science Review 75, no. 3: 701–16. doi: 10.2307/1960962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A.K. 1990. Gender and cooperative conflicts. In Persistent Inequalities Women and World Development, ed. I. Tinker, 123–49. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Studlar, D., and J. McAllister. 2002. Does a critical mass exist? A comparative analysis of women's legislative representation since 1950. European Journal of Political Research 41, no. 2: 233–53. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.00011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swers, M. 2001. Understanding the policy impact of electing women: Evidence from research on congress and state legislatures. Political Science and Politics 34, no. 2: 217–20. doi: 10.1017/S1049096501000348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tankha, A. 2002. Self-help groups as financial intermediaries in India: Cost of promotion, sustainability and impact. A study prepared for ICCO and Cordaid, The Netherlands. http://www.microfinancegateway.org/gm/document-1.9.28136/3736_SHGREPORT.pdf
   Google Scholar
• TARU. 2007. Assessing the impact of Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme on poverty: End term assessment, final report. Hyderabad: TARU Leading Edge Pvt. Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, S. 1994. How women legislate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wängnerud, L. 2000. Testing the politics of presence: Women's representation in the Swedish Riksdag. Scandinavian Political Studies 23, no. 1: 67–91. doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.00031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 1997. Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar